Once in Nineteen...

[Mothman]

... or why Vikes Fans are so often divided.

I've mentioned this before but I think one of the reasons Vikings fans are so often split on issues involving the team is because it's been so long since the team put those issues to rest. For example, we're often divided on the QB position but if the Vikes actually had a clearly elite QB for an extended time it would probably put that debate to bed. There would still be disagreements, of course, but if the Vikings ever found their Manning or Brady, most of us would likely be focused on other aspects of the team and would consider the QB position settled.

I think the same is true in the macro view of things. The title of this thread refers to the number of times the Vikings have made a playoff appearance in back-to-back seasons since 2000. They've done it once, in 2008-09. That's it. Contrast that with the prior 9 years (1992-2000), when they made the postseason in 8 of 9 seasons. They weren't very successful in the postseason but they were getting there pretty consistently.

They were mired in mediocrity for a good portion of the '80s but late in the decade, they reached the postseason 3 years in a row.

From '68 to '78 the Vikings went to the postseason 10 times, missing the playoffs only once, in '72.

This franchise has had droughts and periods of mediocrity but what we're seeing this century is a little different. Even in the Zimmer era, where many fans would point to his .599 win percentage and consider it successful, each playoff appearance has been sandwiched between a near-.500 season. Where's the consistency to at least reach the postseason in back-to-back years?

In short, I still think one of the reasons discussions of the Vikes are often so contentious is because in this century, the team has spent so much time existing in a somewhat undefined state, rarely elite, rarely awful, where it's easy to see the glass as half full or half empty because it's not clear. Are they on the way up? Are they on the way down? Are they treading water?

If they could create some sustained success, it might settle a lot of debate.

[J. Kapp 11]

If the Vikings had an elite quarterback, they likely wouldn't be sporadic in playing in the postseason. Think New England would have been to 9 Super Bowls in 19 years without Tom Brady?

As for fans being divided, it will always be that way. Sustained success, while awesome, doesn't end discord. It simply creates another kind.

You're in Chicago. Look at the Cubs. In the first decade of this century, they made the playoffs 3 times ... fans became downright vitriolic. That's a far cry from how it was when they were the Lovable Losers. I remember being stationed at Great Lakes in 1980. I used to go to games in my uniform all the time. The Cubs couldn't have been a worse team, yet everybody loved them. I absolutely loved going to the games in those days. It was a party. Then along came 2003, and now Steve Bartman can't live in public because he got his hands on a foul ball that a dozen other people tried to catch and "cost" the Cubs a trip to the Series.

Fast forward to 2015. They have 5 winning seasons in a row, averaging 94 wins per season. They make the playoffs 4 times, the NLCS 3 times, and win the World Series in 2016, breaking a 108-year title drought. And what did they do? They got rid of their manager! Fans are terrible. They boo the players routinely. It's like being in Philly. And that's with a winning team. Do you honestly think Cubs fans are happier now than they were in 1980?

I've heard people on this board talk about "sustained success." Therein lies the issue. Winning is like money ... when you get some, you want more. It's never enough. And that, I believe, actually causes MORE discord than less. Look at Patriots fans. They're insufferable.

Look, I want the Vikings to win a Super Bowl as much as anyone. I bleed purple. I get defensive about my team's history because I was around for the 70s, when teams actually feared the Vikings and the media took them seriously. I want to be able to brag to Packer fans, just once in my life.

But people are people. They're never satisfied. Which means they'll always bicker.

[Mothman]

Kapp, I wasn't trying to suggest sustained success would end discord, merely that it might settle some of the most common and contentious disagreements or at least change the conversation.

I'm not naive. I understand sports fans are passionate and never completely satisfied.

Perhaps I should have simply pointed out the stat and left it at that. Whatever we want as fans, I assume it's more than one instance of back-to-back playoff appearances in 19 years? Right?

Heck, I have a pretty cynical view of human nature but I'd like to think if the Vikings had a HOF-caliber QB and had won 4 or 5 Super Bowls during this same 19 year period, we'd all be at least a little more satisfied with our team.

PS.) Regarding Cubs fans: I know quite a few who are happier now that the team has actually won a World Series in their lifetime (ditto for Sox fans). Are some Cubs fans insufferable? Sure, but believe me, some of them were insufferable when the Cubs were "lovable losers" too. Every team, without exception, has it's share of obnoxious fans.

[MikethePurple]

Kapp, I wasn't trying to suggest sustained success would end discord, merely that it might settle some of the most common and contentious disagreements or at least change the conversation.

I'm not naive. I understand sports fans are passionate and never completely satisfied.

Perhaps I should have simply pointed out the stat and left it at that. Whatever we want as fans, I assume it's more than one instance of back-to-back playoff appearances in 19 years? Right?

Heck, I have a pretty cynical view of human nature but I'd like to think if the Vikings had a HOF-caliber QB and had won 4 or 5 Super Bowls during this same 19 year period, we'd all be at least a little more satisfied with our team.

I think at least once would satisfy a majority of the fanbase It'd be like hitting that last jump shot during a round of basketball, end on a good note and walk away!

It's pretty bad, I've almost gotten to the point that I'm relieved that they lost the other weekend because I don't think this current team would have had any chance of beating an elite team and I can just enjoy watching the Super Bowl! A friend of mine is a 49ers fan and he won't let anyone who is rooting for the Chiefs to come to his party because he "doesn't want those vibes at his house." I'm honestly pretty indifferent to who wins but I can't guarantee I'm not going to cheer for the Chiefs as I'm kind of leaning that way. I don't envy that amount of stress!

For it to be a fun rather than an excruciating experience I think we'd have to at least believe that they stood a chance and unfortunately, the last time I felt that way was 2009.

[Dames]

Kapp, I wasn't trying to suggest sustained success would end discord, merely that it might settle some of the most common and contentious disagreements or at least change the conversation.

I'm not naive. I understand sports fans are passionate and never completely satisfied.

Perhaps I should have simply pointed out the stat and left it at that. Whatever we want as fans, I assume it's more than one instance of back-to-back playoff appearances in 19 years? Right?

Heck, I have a pretty cynical view of human nature but I'd like to think if the Vikings had a HOF-caliber QB and had won 4 or 5 Super Bowls during this same 19 year period, we'd all be at least a little more satisfied with our team.

I would be, I know that. Of course, it's a lot easier to think that now having gone through the 19 years first. So, more accurately, if they win 4 or 5 over the next 19 years, we all might be a little more satisfied, because we've been through the bad years first and know how it could be. But, yes, there are always going to be people who are never satisfied no matter what. I personally don't know many Pats fans, but I hear the stories about how unreasonable they can be when they have a slightly down year. To us, that just seems so stupid and greedy. Yankees fans are the same way. I do know plenty of those and they don't understand why Twins fans can't stand them.... I get exasperated trying to help them understand. Maybe Vikings fans would be the same after a while if we had that level of success.

But, it would be REALLY nice to have a franchise QB and have other issues to complain about instead. That topic is way overdue to be ignored.

[J. Kapp 11]

Kapp, I wasn't trying to suggest sustained success would end discord, merely that it might settle some of the most common and contentious disagreements or at least change the conversation.

I'm not naive. I understand sports fans are passionate and never completely satisfied.

Perhaps I should have simply pointed out the stat and left it at that. Whatever we want as fans, I assume it's more than one instance of back-to-back playoff appearances in 19 years? Right?

Heck, I have a pretty cynical view of human nature but I'd like to think if the Vikings had a HOF-caliber QB and had won 4 or 5 Super Bowls during this same 19 year period, we'd all be at least a little more satisfied with our team.

PS.) Regarding Cubs fans: I know quite a few who are happier now that the team has actually won a World Series in their lifetime (ditto for Sox fans). Are some Cubs fans insufferable? Sure, but believe me, some of them were insufferable when the Cubs were "lovable losers" too. Every team, without exception, has it's share of obnoxious fans.

I know you're not naive. I just really believe that fans are going to grouse every bit as much, no matter the outcome.

That being said, I'd certainly rather b!tch about a winner than a loser.

With the Cubs (and I'm a weird combination of Vikings fan and Cubs fan ... my Chicago time in the 80s is part of the reason, the other being that I live in Des Moines, where the Iowa Cubs play) I just see an overall less joyful experience at the ballpark. There's a ton of tension. It's like Cub fans believe every year should be 2016. I have literally seen them boo the heck out of Javier Baez for chasing a slider to strike out, then yell "Ja-vy, Ja-vy" or "M-V-P" and make him take a curtain call a half hour later when he hits one in the seats. Dave Kingman did the same thing in the '70s and '80s, but nobody booed. It's just gotten ... well, tense. Did I love them winning the WS in '16? Absolutely. But it's not as fun anymore. Obviously that's just my view.

I can say this. If the Vikings ever hoist that trophy in my lifetime, my own personal celebration will be 1000 times that of the Cubs winning the series. If I'm still working (I hope to retire in about 2 years, so kind of doubtful) I don't think they'll see me in the office for at least a week. Heck, I already had (sort of) permission from the wife in 2017 to buy Super Bowl tickets, no matter the cost, if they had beaten Philly. If nothing else, I'll be in Minneapolis for the parade. And I swear to almighty God, I'll be happy. After 51 years, I really just want one. If they win more, great. But I'll happily settle for one.

[Mothman]

I know you're not naive. I just really believe that fans are going to grouse every bit as much, no matter the outcome.

As an experienced fan and grouser, I think you're probably right.

That being said, I'd certainly rather b!tch about a winner than a loser.

Same here. If the #### must continue, it would be nice to #### about how badly the Vikes are screwing up their chance to win a third Super Bowl in a row.

With the Cubs (and I'm a weird combination of Vikings fan and Cubs fan ... my Chicago time in the 80s is part of the reason, the other being that I live in Des Moines, where the Iowa Cubs play) I just see an overall less joyful experience at the ballpark. There's a ton of tension. It's like Cub fans believe every year should be 2016. I have literally seen them boo the heck out of Javier Baez for chasing a slider to strike out, then yell "Ja-vy, Ja-vy" or "M-V-P" and make him take a curtain call a half hour later when he hits one in the seats. Dave Kingman did the same thing in the '70s and '80s, but nobody booed. It's just gotten ... well, tense. Did I love them winning the WS in '16? Absolutely. But it's not as fun anymore. Obviously that's just my view.

That's probably accurate. I think a lot of fans had become so accustomed to the team never really having a chance that they didn't feel the stakes were any higher than just having fun at Wrigley for a day.

That Bartman stuff was ugly... and nuts.

I can say this. If the Vikings ever hoist that trophy in my lifetime, my own personal celebration will be 1000 times that of the Cubs winning the series. If I'm still working (I hope to retire in about 2 years, so kind of doubtful) I don't think they'll see me in the office for at least a week. Heck, I already had (sort of) permission from the wife in 2017 to buy Super Bowl tickets, no matter the cost, if they had beaten Philly. If nothing else, I'll be in Minneapolis for the parade. And I swear to almighty God, I'll be happy. After 51 years, I really just want one. If they win more, great. But I'll happily settle for one.

I understand! I've been waiting since '69 so I'd love to see them get just one and when they do, I'll be very happy to see it.

You'll relate to this: when the Chiefs won on Sunday, I told a friend I would be rooting for them in the Super Bowl because the 49ers have won so many and I certainly wasn't going to root for GB of they had won. Immediately after saying that, I was struck by a feeling of resentment because we both know what happened the last time KC won it all. I guess I'm still not quite over it. Maybe in another 50 years or so...

[Mothman]

I think at least once would satisfy a majority of the fanbase It'd be like hitting that last jump shot during a round of basketball, end on a good note and walk away!

It's pretty bad, I've almost gotten to the point that I'm relieved that they lost the other weekend because I don't think this current team would have had any chance of beating an elite team and I can just enjoy watching the Super Bowl! A friend of mine is a 49ers fan and he won't let anyone who is rooting for the Chiefs to come to his party because he "doesn't want those vibes at his house." I'm honestly pretty indifferent to who wins but I can't guarantee I'm not going to cheer for the Chiefs as I'm kind of leaning that way. I don't envy that amount of stress!

For it to be a fun rather than an excruciating experience I think we'd have to at least believe that they stood a chance and unfortunately, the last time I felt that way was 2009.

Same here. I desperately want them to win a Super Bowl but i also don't know if my nerves could handle them getting there and having little chance to win.

I want them to storm through a postseason like the '85 Bears.

[Raptorman]

I think at least once would satisfy a majority of the fanbase It'd be like hitting that last jump shot during a round of basketball, end on a good note and walk away!

It's pretty bad, I've almost gotten to the point that I'm relieved that they lost the other weekend because I don't think this current team would have had any chance of beating an elite team and I can just enjoy watching the Super Bowl! A friend of mine is a 49ers fan and he won't let anyone who is rooting for the Chiefs to come to his party because he "doesn't want those vibes at his house." I'm honestly pretty indifferent to who wins but I can't guarantee I'm not going to cheer for the Chiefs as I'm kind of leaning that way. I don't envy that amount of stress!

For it to be a fun rather than an excruciating experience I think we'd have to at least believe that they stood a chance and unfortunately, the last time I felt that way was 2009.

Same here. I desperately want them to win a Super Bowl but i also don't know if my nerves could handle them getting there and having little chance to win.

I want them to storm through a postseason like the '85 Bears.

The only Super Bowl loss I could handle would be if we lost to the Bills. Any other team would be devastating to me. I've been waiting since '66. 4 loses. And to watch teams with more losses be claimed better because they won one. It's heartbreaking. But I'm a fan for life.

Fan. Short for Fanatic:: a person who is extremely enthusiastic about and devoted to some interest or activity.

For me, it's two things, The Vikings and Airplanes.

[fiestavike]

Kapp, I wasn't trying to suggest sustained success would end discord, merely that it might settle some of the most common and contentious disagreements or at least change the conversation.

I'm not naive. I understand sports fans are passionate and never completely satisfied.

Perhaps I should have simply pointed out the stat and left it at that. Whatever we want as fans, I assume it's more than one instance of back-to-back playoff appearances in 19 years? Right?

Heck, I have a pretty cynical view of human nature but I'd like to think if the Vikings had a HOF-caliber QB and had won 4 or 5 Super Bowls during this same 19 year period, we'd all be at least a little more satisfied with our team.

PS.) Regarding Cubs fans: I know quite a few who are happier now that the team has actually won a World Series in their lifetime (ditto for Sox fans). Are some Cubs fans insufferable? Sure, but believe me, some of them were insufferable when the Cubs were "lovable losers" too. Every team, without exception, has it's share of obnoxious fans.

I know you're not naive. I just really believe that fans are going to grouse every bit as much, no matter the outcome.

That being said, I'd certainly rather b!tch about a winner than a loser.

With the Cubs (and I'm a weird combination of Vikings fan and Cubs fan ... my Chicago time in the 80s is part of the reason, the other being that I live in Des Moines, where the Iowa Cubs play) I just see an overall less joyful experience at the ballpark. There's a ton of tension. It's like Cub fans believe every year should be 2016. I have literally seen them boo the heck out of Javier Baez for chasing a slider to strike out, then yell "Ja-vy, Ja-vy" or "M-V-P" and make him take a curtain call a half hour later when he hits one in the seats. Dave Kingman did the same thing in the '70s and '80s, but nobody booed. It's just gotten ... well, tense. Did I love them winning the WS in '16? Absolutely. But it's not as fun anymore. Obviously that's just my view.

I can say this. If the Vikings ever hoist that trophy in my lifetime, my own personal celebration will be 1000 times that of the Cubs winning the series. If I'm still working (I hope to retire in about 2 years, so kind of doubtful) I don't think they'll see me in the office for at least a week. Heck, I already had (sort of) permission from the wife in 2017 to buy Super Bowl tickets, no matter the cost, if they had beaten Philly. If nothing else, I'll be in Minneapolis for the parade. And I swear to almighty God, I'll be happy. After 51 years, I really just want one. If they win more, great. But I'll happily settle for one.

I'm not certain that the difference can be attributed to the Cubs winning as much as it can be to the trajectory of society more generally over the last 20 years. I'm sure higher expectations don't help in any case.

[Bowhunting Viking]

Well all I can give is my scenario. Like many of you I've been a Vikes die hard for so long. Was born in Oct of 64, so I am now 55. Dad started me out right away, and about 4 or 5 , whenever u really start understanding, I've been hardcore. We still have an old mimeograph paper ( is old guys will remember those pre copier days lol) from my 1st grade class, where as a side my wife was a part of so we have known each other forever. The teacher asked everyone what they wanted to be when they grew up. Right there in faded black ink is my answer " I want to play for and then own the Minnesota Vikings "
So I have never given up.
My signature says it all because I'm in a a little different situation. Heart disease runs in my moms side of the family and I didnt Escape it. I had my 1st heart attack playing softball at 25, and then my second one at 41. And I've had several other caths and angioplasties between those 2. Weird thing is both occurred on the same day.. June 26th. To make it even weirder, my daughter was actually born on that same day. So that's what I celebrate on that day. I am a believer that when it's you time to go its gonna happen then.
But man I just want to experience the Vikes winning a SB before I check out. My wife , mom and sister always hope we don't reach the SB cuz they see how stressed I get during playoff games. They fear I will drop over during the SB lol. My daughter is a die hard Vikes fan so shes with me. She gets it.
Also I dont have any tattoos, but I have one already designed that I've promised that I will get started on immediately the next day if we would win the SB.
Another reason my wife and mom don't want us to win the SB cuz they don't like tattoos. But in my wifes Defense, she has said that made that promise since high school so she wouldn't try and stop me and would just learn to live with it.
I promise you, if we would, in my lifetime, win the SB. I will be a satisfied man. Would I want to win another. Sure I would. But I can honestly, totally honestly say that if we get the one before I die, I will immediately order the Vikings SB winning pkg on TV, I will get that tattoo right away, and will really feel a fulfillment as far as that part of life goes. Then the next thing will be to be blessed with at least one grandchild. That would be the last victory.
Then when I do die, I already have it layed out as a celebration, not a sad affair. I will be in the casket and buried with Predator camo pants, if we win the SB , the SB shirt and commemorative game ball ( if not my fave old school Vikes shirt and another Vikings ball) a special camo Vikings hat, and my favorite old Mathews bow and the arrow and broadhead I killed my biggest buck with.
I have it all planned. It's a celebration. I just want that SB gear included lol.
Hey, it can happen.

[StumpHunter]

If the Vikings had an elite quarterback, they likely wouldn't be sporadic in playing in the postseason. Think New England would have been to 9 Super Bowls in 19 years without Tom Brady?

I think you identified why having a great QB is so important.

Teams that try to build an elite team around just an okay QB can have success, but sustained success with that model has become non-existent. It is just too hard to keep that great team together or even playing at a high level.

Until we have that QB who hides flaws on the team with his play, we will forever be an up and down franchise.

[StumpHunter]

Kapp, I wasn't trying to suggest sustained success would end discord, merely that it might settle some of the most common and contentious disagreements or at least change the conversation.

I'm not naive. I understand sports fans are passionate and never completely satisfied.

Perhaps I should have simply pointed out the stat and left it at that. Whatever we want as fans, I assume it's more than one instance of back-to-back playoff appearances in 19 years? Right?

Heck, I have a pretty cynical view of human nature but I'd like to think if the Vikings had a HOF-caliber QB and had won 4 or 5 Super Bowls during this same 19 year period, we'd all be at least a little more satisfied with our team.

PS.) Regarding Cubs fans: I know quite a few who are happier now that the team has actually won a World Series in their lifetime (ditto for Sox fans). Are some Cubs fans insufferable? Sure, but believe me, some of them were insufferable when the Cubs were "lovable losers" too. Every team, without exception, has it's share of obnoxious fans.

I know you're not naive. I just really believe that fans are going to grouse every bit as much, no matter the outcome.

That being said, I'd certainly rather b!tch about a winner than a loser.

With the Cubs (and I'm a weird combination of Vikings fan and Cubs fan ... my Chicago time in the 80s is part of the reason, the other being that I live in Des Moines, where the Iowa Cubs play) I just see an overall less joyful experience at the ballpark. There's a ton of tension. It's like Cub fans believe every year should be 2016. I have literally seen them boo the heck out of Javier Baez for chasing a slider to strike out, then yell "Ja-vy, Ja-vy" or "M-V-P" and make him take a curtain call a half hour later when he hits one in the seats. Dave Kingman did the same thing in the '70s and '80s, but nobody booed. It's just gotten ... well, tense. Did I love them winning the WS in '16? Absolutely. But it's not as fun anymore. Obviously that's just my view.

I can say this. If the Vikings ever hoist that trophy in my lifetime, my own personal celebration will be 1000 times that of the Cubs winning the series. If I'm still working (I hope to retire in about 2 years, so kind of doubtful) I don't think they'll see me in the office for at least a week. Heck, I already had (sort of) permission from the wife in 2017 to buy Super Bowl tickets, no matter the cost, if they had beaten Philly. If nothing else, I'll be in Minneapolis for the parade. And I swear to almighty God, I'll be happy. After 51 years, I really just want one. If they win more, great. But I'll happily settle for one.

As a fellow Cub fan, I couldn't agree more. Winning it all didn't change things for the better, it probably made it worse.

I think the difference between the Vikings and Cubs is that Cubs fans kind of liked rooting for the lovable losers. I don't know a lot of Vikings fans who think the Vikings not winning it all has any charm whatsoever.

[fiestavike]

If the Vikings had an elite quarterback, they likely wouldn't be sporadic in playing in the postseason. Think New England would have been to 9 Super Bowls in 19 years without Tom Brady?

I think you identified why having a great QB is so important.

Teams that try to build an elite team around just an okay QB can have success, but sustained success with that model has become non-existent. It is just too hard to keep that great team together or even playing at a high level.

Until we have that QB who hides flaws on the team with his play, we will forever be an up and down franchise.

Or, simply a down franchise. Its a possibility which shouldn't be dismissed.

[Raptorman]

If the Vikings had an elite quarterback, they likely wouldn't be sporadic in playing in the postseason. Think New England would have been to 9 Super Bowls in 19 years without Tom Brady?

As for fans being divided, it will always be that way. Sustained success, while awesome, doesn't end discord. It simply creates another kind.

You're in Chicago. Look at the Cubs. In the first decade of this century, they made the playoffs 3 times ... fans became downright vitriolic. That's a far cry from how it was when they were the Lovable Losers. I remember being stationed at Great Lakes in 1980. I used to go to games in my uniform all the time. The Cubs couldn't have been a worse team, yet everybody loved them. I absolutely loved going to the games in those days. It was a party. Then along came 2003, and now Steve Bartman can't live in public because he got his hands on a foul ball that a dozen other people tried to catch and "cost" the Cubs a trip to the Series.

Fast forward to 2015. They have 5 winning seasons in a row, averaging 94 wins per season. They make the playoffs 4 times, the NLCS 3 times, and win the World Series in 2016, breaking a 108-year title drought. And what did they do? They got rid of their manager! Fans are terrible. They boo the players routinely. It's like being in Philly. And that's with a winning team. Do you honestly think Cubs fans are happier now than they were in 1980?

I've heard people on this board talk about "sustained success." Therein lies the issue. Winning is like money ... when you get some, you want more. It's never enough. And that, I believe, actually causes MORE discord than less. Look at Patriots fans. They're insufferable.

Look, I want the Vikings to win a Super Bowl as much as anyone. I bleed purple. I get defensive about my team's history because I was around for the 70s, when teams actually feared the Vikings and the media took them seriously. I want to be able to brag to Packer fans, just once in my life.

But people are people. They're never satisfied. Which means they'll always bicker.

Actually, yes. Maybe not 9. but 8. Brady is good, don't get me wrong. But he is not the sole reason they went and won. The Pats are a team. And play as a team. Brady is a cog in that team. That is all. Even if he has gone next year, whoever Belichick plugs in at QB will probably still win 11 games.